N. Idaho bar stops carrying brands that endorse gay organizations

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol how funny but I do consider lillith typical of their anti-Christian , failed leftist mind set and think she represents these people rather well .

There is nothing anti-Christian about liberalism. Every liberal political belief is consistent with the teachings of Christ, especially the rejection of your hate and bigotry. And equality and justice have not and will not failed.

hwyangel wrote:

Being against same sex marriage has nothing to do with being against homosexuals. It's about believing in marriage as a support system for children. By redefining marriage as a relationship between two or more consenting adults makes no sense because the only reason to prohibit marriage between, for example, a father and adult daughter, a mother and adult son, cousins, or aunts and uncles, is to prevent birth defects.

Yeah, it is about being against gay people, it's insulting Jim Crow laws that do not benefit any child in the slightest. To tell a couple the love and commitment that brought them to the alter is invalid and unworthy of the very word marriage is just plain hateful.
And marriage equality has been the law for years in many states and NOBODY has married five people, their mother, their cat or their vacuum cleaner.

disaster in the making wrote:

<quoted text>
were you born stupid or was there some development you dumb shit no one and I mean no one is going to take away you're choices. to choose whom you want to cover yours or anyone else insurance, what this will do is drive the cost to the consumer (you) DOWN and for some people depending on there income and how many dependents they have may fall under the expanded madicade or madicare programs. some call it a tax look at it this way where would rather see your tax dollars go in a politations pocket or filtered back to the taxpayers. I rather see my tax dollars make my life better than my congressman's bank account bigger

I work to pay for my insurance. If I don't want it then I don't have to pay for it, I have a choice.
If someone cant afford insurance they can not be legally refused emergency medical care. They also have access to a variety of medical services through the health department or free clinics.
Obamacare will not make my life better, it will only raise my taxes.
What Obamacare will do is force tax payers to pay for abortion, allow schools to implement medical services to children without parental consent or knowledge, cut social security (money payed out my wages ) and replace it with end of life counciling , hire 16,000 new IRS officers to make sure you pay it even if you don't want it, remove any competition or need for new innovation, and give those who don't work the same level of medical care that I work for.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Dear, just because you could think of a pretty darn good reason against incestuous marriages, doesn't mean you have proved the case against allowing same sex marriages. Sorry, but when it comes to the individual's right to marry, you have to prove the case against their marriage, not someone else's. You have provided no basis why same sex couples should be legally eligible for marriage. If you believe in marriage as a support system for children, why are you so callously disregarding the children of same sex couples? There are estimated to be at least two million of them already and many live in states where they have little or no legal rights whatsoever as a family.

Simple biology says that same sex couples can not make babies. Unless of course you advocate for normalizing the systematic separation of children from their biological parents. Even in heterosexual relationships step-parenting is the exception rather than the rule because it is a clear indication of an absent parent. Hence the concept of "step-parenting", meaning to step in where there is an absent parent.
And I believe you have that backwards. When redefining a concept the burden of proof is on the reason for change. So the question would be, what is the public interest in governing relationships between adult couples that do not produce children?

OkieDarren wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, it is about being against gay people, it's insulting Jim Crow laws that do not benefit any child in the slightest. To tell a couple the love and commitment that brought them to the alter is invalid and unworthy of the very word marriage is just plain hateful.
And marriage equality has been the law for years in many states and NOBODY has married five people, their mother, their cat or their vacuum cleaner.

Government recognized marriage has nothing to do with love or religion. It was established by the government to govern a real public interest, children. Every time a child is removed from their natural parents, when it is not necessary for the welfare of the child, a grave injustice occurs.
When marriage is no longer governed to protect children from disease and deformity when "two consenting adults" are permitted to marry a sibling , it is simply cruel.
When society cares more about the financial gain of adults rather than the financial support of a helpless child then we have truly doomed our future.

Hwyangel - No one ever said anything about taking children out of a good home so that they could be given to a gay couple. Gay families adopt exactly how straight ones do:

Either a child is without parents, so a family (gay or straight) adopts them;

or

One parent leaves the union, and the new partner wishes to legally adopt the child(ren) of the union in order to form a closer bond.

WHAT, about either of these situations, involves taking children out of a stable relationship?

Marriage does not change your personal choices or desires. In fact there is no public interest in who you choose to love or live with. Being against same sex marriage has nothing to do with being against homosexuals. It has nothing to do with love or religion. But there is a real public interest in relationships that produce children.

For example : cooking. If you cook at home there is no law that tells you what to cook, how to cook, or when to cook.
But in public it is governed by law. There are rules for littering, fires and public gathering. There rules for restaurants and sidewalk stands.
The difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships have the same concept. There is just no reason to govern same sex relationships.

There are laws governing the preparation of food because of real risks to the health of the patrons.

There is not a shred of evidence that same sex parents pose a risk to the children.

hwyangel wrote:

http://faithdrivenconsumer.org /
...don't bully anyone who does.

IF by your statement you mean to imply that you don't shop companies that support equal rights for all citizens, I'm fine with that. However, you need to know that all computer manufactures are "GLBT supportive", all operating software is produced by companies that support equal right for all, all phone companies, cell or land line, all major liquor companies, most breweries, most manufacturers of just about anything you use day to day. So, bottom line is to stay true to your beliefs you need to strip naked and move into a cave someplace and grow all your own food and fiber.

hwyangel wrote:

Marriage does not change your personal choices or desires. In fact there is no public interest in who you choose to love or live with. Being against same sex marriage has nothing to do with being against homosexuals. It has nothing to do with love or religion. But there is a real public interest in relationships that produce children.
........

So, how does that work? Do you believe that allowing same-sex marriage will cause the population to plummet as heterosexuals cease reproducing, and that all married straight couples must produce children?

That's just not logical.

Or, are you trying to say that having married parents provides security for children, and that stable and secure families are good for society?

If you believe so, then you would need to explain how having forcibly unmarried parents is good for the multitudes of children raised by same sex couples, and how requiring children to be raised in a less secure environment is good for society.

And, yes, being against same sex marriage IS being against gay people, in one of the most personal and important ways possible.

You are against their loved ones, their children - their families. Their futures. There is nothing more "against" than that.

hwyangel wrote:

...
For example : cooking. If you cook at home there is no law that tells you what to cook, how to cook, or when to cook.
But in public it is governed by law. There are rules for littering, fires and public gathering. There rules for restaurants and sidewalk stands.
The difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships have the same concept. There is just no reason to govern same sex relationships.

That's one of the oddest comparisons I have ever seen. There are health codes regarding food because if not prepared properly, people can become sick and die.

Not really related to marriage law.

You have yet to logically define this "difference" between gay and straight couples. Both fall in love, form lifelong relationships, and wish to protect and support their spouses. Both raise children, and desire the most security for them. Both become elderly, and do better when not dependent on the state in their old age.

You need to explain why gay and straight couples marry for different reasons. You need to outline the reasons that the children of gay parents do not require the same security that other children benefit from.

You need to show that marriage law does not help to ensure security to the elderly who might be gay.

Please explain the "differences". Providing studies and stats would be a nice way to bolster your arguments.

Kolyma wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why are there not 11 commandments where the righteous are commanded to give up all their money and possessions?
And why have a tithe at all if a true believer is suppose to be possession less?
Why do some bible verses pertain to some people some times and other people other times?
Since human's lives are fluid the bible will not always make sense or even apply to an individuals circumstance.
Parables don't apply to a just a person but to a circumstance or a condition.
Let me ask you why did some of the most brutal tyrannies in the world Outlaw religion?
China, Russia, Cuba, they all outlawed religion.
Why do you think religion was outlawed in those countries?
It was obvious In your comment that you were just shaking with anger. I will not ask why, but it came across in your writing.
By the way I'm a Buddhist not a Christian.

By the way, your scrying crystal is in need of replacement.

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

<quoted text>
People like lillith are a financial nightmare for hard working patriotic Christians , no wonder she is a lib.

There you go with the jingoism again. You're such a dolt.

Nytebreid wrote:

<quoted text>Your Nobel prize is an interesting analogy. Most people do the work in order to do something - not to get a prize. If you were to go to school, put in long hours of research, and eventually find a cure for all forms of cancer... you would likely get a Nobel prize - but is that what you were doing the work for? Would it matter if you didn't get the prize?

Likewise, when gay couples' marriages are recognized, it won't matter to me if people don't think as much of the word marriage - I will know that my vows to my wife mean exactly as much as the day I made them. Other peoples' opinions be damned.

The reward for the work is not the prize only a recognition for the hard work.

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Dear, just because you could think of a pretty darn good reason against incestuous marriages, doesn't mean you have proved the case against allowing same sex marriages. Sorry, but when it comes to the individual's right to marry, you have to prove the case against their marriage, not someone else's. You have provided no basis why same sex couples should be legally eligible for marriage. If you believe in marriage as a support system for children, why are you so callously disregarding the children of same sex couples? There are estimated to be at least two million of them already and many live in states where they have little or no legal rights whatsoever as a family.

Gay people have civil Unions and receive all the same rights a non gay couple receive. It's law, whether a state allows gay marriage or not.

Gays want the definition of marriage to change. If the definition of marriage can constantly be redefined and amended then what's the point in calling it a marriage in the first place? Or even being married?

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple biology says that same sex couples can not make babies. Unless of course you advocate for normalizing the systematic separation of children from their biological parents. Even in heterosexual relationships step-parenting is the exception rather than the rule because it is a clear indication of an absent parent. Hence the concept of "step-parenting", meaning to step in where there is an absent parent.
And I believe you have that backwards. When redefining a concept the burden of proof is on the reason for change. So the question would be, what is the public interest in governing relationships between adult couples that do not produce children?

But those "step parents" are allowed to legally marry, as are the infertile, the elderly, those who adopt, and those who choose not to have children. If they are straight.

If you wish to deny a legal marriage license ONLY to gay couples, you need to show how they are different, even when in the same circumstances.

You need to show that their marriages will harm society in some way, in order to create laws that specifically discriminate against them.

There has already been AMPLE proof of the need for change. It's now up to the people who which discriminate against the marriages of same-sex couples and their kids to show why that harm is in the best interest of all.

And so far, not a one of them has been able to do it.

Nytebreid wrote:

There are laws governing the preparation of food because of real risks to the health of the patrons.

There is not a shred of evidence that same sex parents pose a risk to the children.

Why hasn't nature allowed for same sex couples to create children.
The vanity of humans to assume we know better than nurture is absurd.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>By the way, your scrying crystal is in need of replacement.

Anger again? Or just hurt?

hwyangel wrote:

<quoted text>
Government recognized marriage has nothing to do with love or religion. It was established by the government to govern a real public interest, children......

There are two interests represented in marriage laws - the societal ideal, followed by the state interest. We ALL know what the societal ideal is - marrying for love and forming a wonderful family. Marriage really can't be separated from that, and our laws support that, although they do not require it.

But let's leave that out for the moment.

Is that public interest in requiring the maximum number of children be produced, or in providing a stable environment for the raising of children?

Answer honestly.

OkieDarren wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, it is about being against gay people, it's insulting Jim Crow laws that do not benefit any child in the slightest. To tell a couple the love and commitment that brought them to the alter is invalid and unworthy of the very word marriage is just plain hateful.
And marriage equality has been the law for years in many states and NOBODY has married five people, their mother, their cat or their vacuum cleaner.

Democrats were the supporters of Jim Crow laws.

What does the democrat, Jim Crow laws have to do with it?

Wait didn't the democrats start the KKK too? And oppose Civil Rights legislation?

All Gore's very own father voted against Civil Rights legislation as a senator, I believe.